Wants to read Tales of Hoffmann
book
Rated Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages 8/10
Wants to read The Modern Guide to Antique Jewellery
Rated Cat’s Cradle 10/10
A lovely absurdist book, both hilarious and yet terrifying. It concerns, as far as I can tell, humanity's need to find meaning, the lack thereof, and our collective immaturity that, among other things, leads to the creation of weapons that we can't hope to be responsible for. There is also a nice ethics/science tension throughout the book that makes it incredibly relevant to a practicing scientist.<br/><br/>This book is more linear than the past two Vonnegut books I've read, which include Slaughterhouse 5 and Bluebeard. It is also shorter. However, its also somehow denser than those others, and took me longer to read in spite of being a bit shorter. The structure is broken up into over a hundred small chunks, serving like mini-chapters, that are usually only 1-3 pages in length. It has a main POV character, but still has plenty of asides and time-jumping that give it a Vonnegut style, even given its linearity.
Finished reading Missy, Vol. 3: Missy and The Monk
Rated The Stone in the Skull 8/10
I agree with some of the more negative comments about the early pages being a bit of a slog. For a character-driven story I had a difficult time relating to the main characters. Not that they were bad, unlikeable people but some of them are pretty strange (I'm beginning to wonder if Elizabeth Bear hasn't got a thing for automatons) and there is a lot of worldbuilding going on that tends to slow the plot down considerably. Eventually, however we've got all the players on stage and things really pick up in the second half. I'm charged up to see where Bear takes us now, and I have a lot of faith in her ability to make me happy I made the slog.
Finished reading Go Tell It on the Mountain
Edited 45d ago
Rated Blindsight 9/10
Edited 45d ago
Rated The Logic of Scientific Discovery 8/10
A really impressive work by Popper. The sheer amount of argumentation and effort going into this is astounding. However, it is also quite dense, containing a lot of logical statements and more technical philosophical language. Popper also has a sometimes-rambling writing style which is endearing and nice to read, but also lengthens the text beyond what it strictly needs to be. <br/><br/>If you are interested in getting to know about Popper's work, I advise reading the first few chapters only.
Rated The Algebraist 6/10
Edited 45d ago
Finished reading Children of Ruin
Finished reading Children of Memory
Wants to read Man's Search for Meaning
Rated The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science 8/10
The best thing about the book is the summing up of the major Popper vs. Kuhn debate of the 20th century over the "method" of science. This is done in an engaging and clear way, and for that reason alone I would recommend it to any practicing scientist who wants to understand a bit more about epistemology and sociology of science. <br/><br/>I don't like Strevens' treatment of those who came after Popper&Kuhn, however. Scholars as diverse as Paul Feyerabend, Bruno Latour, and Harry Collins, are summed under a broad banner of social epistemologists and presented as a foil against Popper&Kuhn. Strevens tacitly endorses the view of this group about the essential subjectivity of science, yet I feel doesn't do their arguments justice or represent them as equals in the wider methods debate. <br/><br/>Finally, Strevens outlines his own idea of a scientific method, based around an "iron rule" of scientific communication demanding arguments-by-evidence, at least in public forums, and a sort of natural consensus-making among scientists that directs them towards conducting more tests and crafting and accepting theories with more explanatory power. I'm unsure how much I agree with this as a universal method of science; it leaves lots of things out; are non-empirical theorists and mathematicians, not scientists? Are lawyers who employ similar strategies in court scientists? Would conspiracy theorists, who often attempt a kind of "iron rule" in their arguments also qualify as scientists too? His argument makes sense, yet although I have some experience with the history of science & epistemology, I don't have enough to take a side on whether Strevens' version of the scientific method holds water. <br/><br/>Most of his arguments are supported with historical examples of episodes in science, with a particular interest in the the observations of solar eclipses by Edington necessary for testing Einstein's theories, and the fuzziness and messiness of the data involved. There are also some interesting parts about Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin. At times, however, Strevens' uses metaphors when he should default to simpler terms or more historical examples; for example, he for some reason refers to the Popperian & Kuhnian camps as "Monegues" and "Capulets", which while cute, forces the reader to keep track of another set of names, and the metaphor itself contributes little. <br/><br/>Overall, a decent book. I have personal issues with the argument, but that's fine. I think the intended audience is practicing scientists with less interest in deep epistemological arguments; for those readers, I readily recommend it, and it will certainly teach them something about science. For anyone with more than passing interest in the debates over the philosophy of science, much of the book will only serve as a refresher, and the description of the "Iron Rule" framework will likely feel too vague to really evaluate; I am sure that Strevens' academic works develop the argument more fully. Give it a read if you're interested!<br/>